logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.05.25 2013가단11890
정산금 및 건물명도
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. On March 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant building to Defendant C, Nonparty E, and the instant building and entered into a partnership agreement with the content that jointly operates the restaurant (trade name:F); (b) around July 201, the Plaintiff withdrawn from the partnership relationship; and (c) around April 5, 2012, Defendant C’s withdrawal from the partnership agreement was terminated around that time.

Plaintiff

A paid a considerable amount of money due to facility costs, etc. and operated a restaurant with the burden of operating losses, but Defendant C did not raise funds for the operation of the restaurant except for the first amount of KRW 40 million.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff at least KRW 10 million with the settlement amount following the termination of the partnership agreement.

In addition, Defendant D, as the husband of Defendant C, occupied the third floor of the instant building as the office jointly with Defendant C, and there is no entitlement to occupy the instant building any longer due to the termination of the partnership agreement, and the Defendants are obligated to deliver the said occupied part to Plaintiff B on behalf of the Plaintiff A.

2. In light of the overall purport of each description of evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the entire pleadings submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C is liable to pay the settlement money to the Plaintiff, even if based on all evidence (Evidence Nos. 1 through 47) submitted by the Plaintiff. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and it is difficult to recognize that Plaintiff B has the title to seek delivery of the building of this case from the Defendants.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow